Epstein Secrets

ine, based on reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement, then the United Slates Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely notice

nection with the investigation, you will bo nal t By: cc: Special Agent -F.B.I Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney Assistant United Stales Attorney 7 7 EFTA00229970 7 :-- Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 15 JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE SO'

he agreement secret. In particular, the agreement stated: "The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstei

pstein hereby flits that he undersea-4s the cluifications to the Non- Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with than. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UN: TED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: BY: Dated: Dated: Dated: ifrja JEFFREY EPSTEIN GERALD LF,FCOURT, &SQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTELN LILLY ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY

y and non-monetary sanctions against both the lawyer filing the pleading and the lawyer's client. Fed: R. Civ. P. 11(c). 28 U.S.C. 61927 Title 28, United States Cod; Section 1927 states: Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so mult

the University of Pennsylvania Law School. 4. After graduating from law school, I served as judicial law clerk to the Honorable Norma L. Shapiro, Uniteed States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 5. In 1988, I began working at the Criminal Division of the United States Department of

ould apply. Since the earliest days of our nation, it has been settled law that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy . . .." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) (internal quotation omitted). Moreover, "[i]f the right is created by a federal statute, the federal courts have

zier, 944 F.2d 820, 825 (11th Cir. 1991) (even a witness who testifies before a grand jury is not required to keep his testimony secret); Blalock v. United Slates, 844 F.2d 1546, 1551 (11th Cir. 1988) ("Rule 6(e)(2) only protects information revealing what has occurred, or will occur, inside the grand jury ro

he Court's earlier finding. The Government also candidly admits that since then "the delay from October 28, 2010 through early March 2011 was due to the United States' efforts to reach [an] amicable resolution of the case . . . .. Gov't Resp. at 46 n.22. 9 The CVRA does not appear to impose specific timelines for v

ring before Epstein and Groff that had nothing to do with the inner workings of the grand jury. There is abundant caselaw to that effect. See, e.g., United States v. Frazier, 944 F.2d 820, 825 (11th Cir. 1991) (even a witness who testifies before a grand jury is not required to keep his testimony secret); Blal

This argument contradicts fundamental American jurisprudence, which holds that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy . .." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) (internal quotation omitted). 'I'he victims have deferred full briefing on the remedy issue because they understa

bsection (a)(8)'s general right to fair treatment by reference to the subsections (and their constituent rights) that precede it. See, Johnson it United States,559 U.S. 133, 139,130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010) ("Ultimately, context determines meaning ...."); Pi Gutierrez v. Ada, 528 U.S. 250, 255, 120 S.

iple— which dates back centuries—that "the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case." 1/ United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974) (citing Confiscation Cases, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 454, 19 L.Ed. 196 (1869)). 23 *12

aw is clear, at least for Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel purposes, that a "prosecution" does not begin with the criminal complaint's filing. See P. United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 199-200 (4th Cir. 2006) ("The filing of a federal criminal complaint does not commence a formal prosecution."); see als

opriate equitable remedy"). Furthermore, it has long been an "indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137, 163, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) (quoting 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries *23). For that reason, "[w]here legal rights ha

place nor suppkniont the filing and seivice of pkadings or whet papers a by local mks of :oat. Tins form. approwed by the Judicial Conference of 'he United Stales In Septanba 1974. is required for the use of the Clerk tX Civil cockei nett SEE INSTRUC TIOVS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.' NOTICE: Attorneys MUST

n "ancillary criminal proceeding[]," DE 290 at 2, presumably not covered by a statute of limitations applicable to a "civil action commences against the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). Even more surprising to us was your Office's failure to discuss the second sentence in § 2401(a), which provides that the si

ld apply. Since the earliest days of our nation, it has been settled law that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy . . . .." Marbury-v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) (internal quotation omitted). Moreover, "[i]f the right is created by a federal statute, the federal courts have

58-59, 89-90). Petitioners leveraged the NPA to their advantage by arguing that it precluded Mr. Epstein from contesting liability. See Doe No. 1 v. United States, 749 F.3d 999, 1002 (11'h Cir. 2014) ("As a basis for relief against Epstein in the civil suit, the victims relied on Epstein's waiver of his right

y stems from the Constitution's delegation of "take Care" duties, U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, and the pardon power, id. § 2, to the Executive Branch. See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 . . . (1996); In re Aiken Cnty., 725 F.3d 255, 262-63 (D.C.Cir.2013). Decisions to initiate charges, or to dismiss

of relief against Mr. Epstein.3 III. THE CVRA ITSELF DOES NOT AUTHORIZE IMPOSITION OF THE EPSTEIN REMEDIES Citing a line of cases beginning with Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Petitioners contend that the CVRA authorizes "the invalidation of an illegal non- prosecution agreement so that t

ing crime victims informed. Just as the Government cannot illegally agree to run a sentence on a new crime concurrently with a probation revocation, United States v. Walker, 98 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 1996), so too here it cannot illegally agree not to prosecute a sex offender without first conferring with his vict

the CVRA. Since the earliest days of our nation, it has been settled law that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy . . . .." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) (internal quotation omitted). Moreover, "[i]f the right is created by a federal statute, the federal courts have

, Baltazar Mesa, Jose Jesus Tapia Perez, and Sergio G6mez Diaz. The attorney general's office said that these men are facing possible extradition to the United States." The Hill (8/20, Budryk, 2.98M) reports Dominican authorities "collaborated with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI in the prob

termination arguably presents basic questions concerning the abuse of presidential power and, in his complaint, McCabe comes out of the box quoting Marbury v. Madison and suggesting that his case presents the question of whether The US government remains 'a government of laws, and not of men.' Can't get

he agreement secret. In particular, the agreement stated: "The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstei

ld apply. Since the earliest days of our nation, it has been settled law that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy . . . .." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) (internal quotation omitted). Moreover, "[l]t' the right is created by a federal statute, the federal courts hav

6, 1998, at BS. 22 Victims' Rights Amendment. Hearing on S.J. Res. 6 Before the S. Judiciary Comm., 105th Cong. 64 (1997) (statement of Janet Reno, U.S. Att'y Gen.). 30 See www.nveap.org (last visted Dec. 30, 2007). 3! For a comprehensive history of victims' efforts to pass a constitutional amendment,

able to reflect the new role of victims throughout the Rules. Moreover, Congress intended the CVRA to be "a formula for success" and a "model for our States." + The only way the federal rules could serve as a model, I argued, was by fully implementing victims’ rights. I then proposed twenty-eight specific

witnesses."). 441 See, e.g., United States v. Pearson, 340 F.3d 459, 468 (7th Cir. 2003); United States v. Bejasa, 904 F.2d 137, 139 (2d Cir. 1990); United States v. Barrett, 766 F.2d 609, 617 (ist Cir. 1985); United States v. Conder, 423 F.2d 904, 910 (6th Cir. 1970). 342 631 F.2d 951, 954-55 (9th Cir.